Communication  to  the 
Common  Council  of  Milwaukee 

from  the 

City  Club  of  Milwaukee 

Committee  on  Street  Lighting 


Subject: 

The  Pending  Question  of  Street  Lighting 
in  Milwaukee. 


The  resolutions  referred  to  in  this  communication  are  given  below,  as  copied  from  the  Journal 
of  Proceedings,  Common  Council,  date  of  November  24,  1913. 


FILE  NUMBER  5839. 

Resolution  to  direct  the  Commissioner  of  Public  Works  to  advertise  for 
bids  for  furnishing  electric  power  for  lighting  streets  of  the  City 
of  Milwaukee. 

Resolved,  By  the  Common  Council  of  the  City  of  Milwaukee,  that 
the  Commissioner  of  Public  Works  be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  to 
advertise,  pursuant  to  law,  for  bids  for  furnishing  to  the  City  of 
Milwaukee  for  three,  five  and  ten  years  respectively  electric  power  for 
a  minimum  of  twenty-three  hundred  electric  arm  lamps  of  the  luminous 
arc  type,  which  shall  be  at  least  equal  in  illuminating  power  to  the 
electric  arc  lamps  already  installed,  and  covering  the  present  arc  light¬ 
ing  system  of  the  city ;  and  also  for  a  minimum  number  of  two  hundred 
electric  incandescent  lamps  of  the  Tungsten  filament  (100  Watt)  type. 
Referred  to  the  Committee  on  Finance. 

FILE  NUMBER  5830. 

Resolution  to  make  a  survey  to  determine  the  number,  etc.,  of  lamps  to 
light  the  streets. 

Resolved,  That  the  Commissioner  of  Public  Works  be  and  he  is 
hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  enter  into  an  agreement  with  a  firm 
of  electric  lighting  engineers  who  shall  make  a  survey  to  determine  the 
number,  character  and  location  of  lamps,  gas  and  electric,  needed  to 
light  the  streets  and  public  buildings  of  the  City  of  Milwaukee;  and  be 
it  further 

Resolved,  That  such  agreement  shall  be  approved  by  the  Common 
Council  of  the  City  of  Milwaukee  before  the  contract  shall  be  let;  and 
be  it  further 

Resolved,  That  for  that  purpose  there  is  hereby  appropriated  a  sum 
not  to  exceed  $5,000.00. 

Referred  to  the  Committee  on  Finance. 


N  ’14  Z.T. 


3  52 ,5  ,  ‘ 

Communication  on  Street  Lighting  in  Milwaukee. 

Milwaukee,  Wis.,  January  3d,  1914. 

To  the  Honorable 

The  President  and  Members  of  the  Common  Council  of  Milwaukee, 

Gentlemen: — 

The  City  Club  of  Milwaukee,  through  its  Committee  on  Street  Lighting,  respect¬ 
fully  begs  to  lay  before  your  honorable  body  certain  considerations  and  suggestions  pertaining  to 
the  existing  street  lighting  situation  in  Milwaukee.  These  considerations,  as  set  forth  below  in 
this  communication,  are  derived  from  a  careful  study  of  the  subject  extending  over  a  period  of  sev¬ 
eral  months.  During  this  time  the  members  of  the  committee  have  not  only  thoroughly  reviewed 
the  engineering  and  business  principles  involved,  but  have  also,  as  individuals,  discussed  the 
existing  street  lighting  situation  with  a  considerable  number  of  leading  business  men  and  public- 
spirited  citizens. 

Our  committee  finds  considerable  difference  of  opinion  to  exist  among  citizens  as  to  the  desira¬ 
bility  of  the  city  installing  and  operating  a  municipal  lighting  plant.  Public  opinion  seems  to  be 
fairly  evenly  divided  on  this  subject,  and  the  supporters  of  either  side  to  the  question  generally 
hold  very  decided  opinions.  Our  committee  has  this  phase  of  the  subject  still  under  considera¬ 
tion  and  will  report  thereon  at  a  future  date. 

In  spite,  however,  of  decided  differences  of  opinion  on  the  subject  of  municipal  lighting  plant, 
our  committee  finds  a  general  agreement  of  opinion  on  other  phases  of  the  street  lighting  problem. 
All  citizens  are  agreed  that  the  present  conditions  of  inadequate  street  lighting  are  well-nigh  in¬ 
tolerable,  that  these  conditions  are  costing  Milwaukee  tens  of  thousands  of  dollars  in  commercial 
and  economic  losses  annually,  that  steps  ought  to  be  taken  at  once  to  provide  for  the  installation 
of  an  adequate  street  lighting  system.  All  citizens  are  agreed  that  such  system  should  be  in¬ 
stalled  as  will  bring,  for  the  money  annually  expended  for  street  lighting,  the  best  possible  re¬ 
sults  in  good  lighting.  This  is  recognized  to  be  equally  desirable,  whether  the  current  be  furnished 
by  a  municipal  plant  or  by  a  private  concern. 

Our  committee  believes  that  the  above  points  of  agreement  are  sufficient  to  afford  a  basis  for 
such  immediate  action  as  the  best  interests  of  Milwaukee  require.  In  short,  our  committee  believes 
it  entirely  practicable  to  arrange  at  once  for  the  installation  of  an  adequate  street  lighting  system 
without  prejudicing,  either  favorably  or  unfavorably,  any  action  which  the  city  may  wish  in  the 
future  to  take  in  the  matter  of  municipal  lighting  plant. 

In  order  to  make  our  suggestions  on  this  subject  as  definite  and  constructive  as  possible,  our 
committee  presents  these  suggestions,  and  the  reasons  therefor,  in  the  form  of  answers  to  three 
questions. 

Question  1. 

Should  a  contract  for  street  lighting  be  signed  at  this  time  with  a  private  company? 

If  all  differences  of  opinion  could  be  reconciled  at  once,  and  general  agreement  could  be  ob¬ 
tained  to  start  forthwith  on  the  erection  of  a  municipal  lighting  plant,  it  would  probably  be  at  least 
two  years  before  such  plant  would  be  fully  equipped  and  ready  to  furnish  current  for  street 
lighting. 

On  the  other  hand,  no  such  unanimity  of  opinion  exists,  or  is  likely  to  exist  in  the  near  future 
Any  steps  toward  actually  commencing  work  on  the  construction  of  a  municipal  plant  are  certain 
within  the  next  year  or  two  at  least,  to  be  vigorously  combatted  by  those  opposed  to  such  a  plant’ 
In  short,  even  if  an  unquestionable  and  clear  majority  can  be  shown  to  favor  the  municipal  plant 
project,  the  minority  opposition  will,  within  the  next  year  or  two,  undoubtedly  have  sufficient 
strength  to  materially  hamper  the  progress  of  the  undertaking. 

In  view  of  the  above  situation  it  would  be  unreasonable  to  assume  that  Milwaukee  will  be  in 
a  position,  at  an  earlier  time  than  three  years  from  date,  to  obtain  from  a  municipal  plant  the  cur 
rent  required  for  street  lighting.  The  probabilities  are  that  it  will  be  at  least  four  or  five  years 
from  date  before  current  could  be  obtained  from  a  municipal  plant.  ^ 


It  is  unthinkable  that  the  present  grossly  inadequate  street  lighting  be  endured  for  from  three 
to  five  years  longer.  In  all  sections  of  the  city  there  is  at  present  an  insistent  demand  for  better 
street  lighting.  No  new  lamps,  even  of  the  present  inefficient  type,  can  be  obtained  or  expected 
under  the  present  no-contract  condition.  Assuming  that  Milwaukee  is  to  have  a  municipal  plant, 
it  is  certain  that  the  community  will  not  and  should  not  await  the  completion  of  such  a  plant  before 
providing  for  new  and  better  street  lamps. 

In  view  of  the  above  considerations,  there  can  he  but  one  answer  to  the  question  here  under 
discussion.  The  city  should  enter  into  a  contract  with  a  private  company  for  lighting  the  streets 
of  Milwaukee,  because  only  under  such  a  contract  will  it  be  possible  to  obtain  at  once  the  urgently 
needed  improvement  in  street  lighting.  Such  contract  should  he  for  a  sufficiently  short  period  to 
permit  current  to  be  furnished  by  a  municipal  plant,  if,  later,  current  shall  be  made  available  by 
the  completion  of  such  plant.  On  the  other  hand,  the  longer  the  term  for  which  the  contract  is 
made,  the  more  favorable  are  the  rates  which  the  city  can  obtain. 

Our  committee  are  unanimously  of  the  opinion  that  a  five-year  contract  for  street  lighting 
should  be  entered  into  with  a  private  company.  Such  contract  should  he  terminable  by  the 
city,  upon  reasonable  notice  in  advance,  at  the  end  of  the  third  or  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  con¬ 
tract  year.  If  so  terminated,  the  lighting  company  would,  unless  some  provision  to  the  contrary 
were  made,  suffer  a  loss  by  having  figured  depreciation  on  a  five-year  basis,  but  only  receiving 
the  payment  of  three  years  or  four  years  to  reimburse  for  depreciation.  The  contract  should 
therefore  fix  a  definite  sum  to  be  paid  by  the  city  as  liquidated  damages,  to  cover  unpaid-for 
depreciation  only,  in  case  the  contract  should  he  terminated,  at  the  option  of  the  city,  at  the  end 
of  three  or  of  four  years. 

Question  2. 

If  a  contract  is  to  be  signed,  what  is  the  proper  basis  for  such  a  contract? 

The  usual  form  of  street  lighting  contract  is  on  the  lamp-year  basis.  The  city  pays  a  fixed 
sum  per  year  for  each  lamp  installed.  This  form  of  contract  is  open  to  a  very  serious  objec¬ 
tion,  the  basis  of  which  is  discussed  in  the  following  paragraphs. 

At  least  60%  of  the  cost  to  a  private  company  in  furnishing  street  lighting  is  involved  in 
the  interest  and  depreciation  charges  on  the  investment.  Thus,  when  a  city  pays  $60.00  per 
lamp  per  year,  only  about  $24.00  of  this  sum  goes  to  repay  the  lighting  company  for  the  cur¬ 
rent  consumed  and  the  maintenance  attention  required,  while  about  $36.00  of  this  sum  goes  to 
repay  interest  and  depreciation  on  the  investment.  The  figures  here  given  apply  to  a  ten-year 
contract.  For  shorter  term  contracts,  the  interest  and  depreciation  factor  represents  a  still  lar¬ 
ger  proportion  of  the  total. 

Let  us  now  see  how  the  lamp-year  basis  of  contract  works  out  under  actual  conditions. 

The  signing  of  such  a  contract  usually  finds  a  city  with  a  more  or  less  inadequate  street 
lighting  system.  Generally  the  new  contract  provides  for  the  adoption  of  an  improved  type 
of  street  lamp.  Upon  the  signing  of  such  a  contract,  the  lighting  company  proceeds  to  install 
a  very  large  number  of  the  new  type  of  lamp.  This  is  due  to  the  facts  that,  first,  it  is  to  the 
interest  of  the  lighting  company  to  furnish  just  as  much  street  lighting  as  the  city  is  willing 
to  authorize;  and  second,  that  the  new  lamps  have  to  be  installed  at  once  if  the  company  is  to 
receive  interest  and  depreciation  on  its  investment  throughout  the  entire  period  of  the  con¬ 
tract. 

At  the  end  of  the  first  year  or  two  of  such  a  contract  a  very  considerable  investment  in 
new  lamps  has  been  made.  By  this  time  it  generally  happens  that  improvements  in  street  lamps 
have  been  made,  and  that  the  lamp  which  was,  perhaps,  the  most  satisfactory  lamp  at  the  time 
the  contract  was  signed,  is  no  longer  the  most  satisfactory.  Nevertheless,  it  is  not  to  the  inter¬ 
est  of  the  lighting  company  to  make  a  change,  both  because  such  change  would  open  anew  for 
discussion  the  question  of  rates,  and  because  the  adoption  of  a  new  and  more  satisfactory  type 
of  lamp  might  tend  to  create  a  demand  for  investment  in  new  distributing  circuits  and  new 
lamps  before  the  investment  in  old  circuits  and  old  lamps  had  been  entirely  covered  by  the 
interest  and  depreciation  charges.  The  lighting  company,  therefore,  and  most  naturally,  pre¬ 
fers  to  continue  the  installation  of  the  type  of  lamp  provided  for  in  the  contract,  while  the  city 
is  in  no  position  to  know  of  the  availability  of  the  improved  type  of  lamp. 

During  the  last  several  years  of  any  lamp-year  contract,  the  lighting  company  naturally  in¬ 
stalls  just  as  few  new  lamps  as  possible.  Such  new  lamps  involve  an  investment  which  will  not 
be  entirely  repaid  by  the  investment  charges  accruing  in  the  year  or  two  which  the  contract 
has  yet  to  run. 


The  lamp-year  basis  of  contract  involves,  therefore,  an  unwisely  large  investment  in  one 
type  of  lamp  during  the  early  period  of  the  contract,  and  an  unwisely  small  investment  in  any 
type  of  lamp  during  the  latter  years  of  the  contract.  Moreover,  the  lamp-year  basis  of  contract 
involves  such  practical  difficulties  in  making  any  change  in  the  type  of  lamp  that  such  changes 
are  very  unlikely  to  be  made.  The  end,  therefore,  of  such  a  lamp-year  contract  usually  finds 
the  city  with  an  inadequate  and  partially  antiquated  system  of  street  lighting. 

Moreover,  the  lighting  company  most  naturally  and  quite  properly  figures  to  be  repaid  dur¬ 
ing  the  term  of  the  contract  for  its  investment  in  street  lamps.  At  the  end  of  the  contract  per¬ 
iod,  therefor,  the  city  is  in  the  position  of  having  paid  for  the  investment  represented  in  the 
lamps,  but  not  having  any  legal  title  to  the  lamps. 

In  short,  the  lamp-year  basis  of  contract  inevitably  results  in  the  city’s  receiving  more  or 
less  inadequate  service  during  the  latter  years  of  the  contract,  and  in  the  city’s  being  left  at  the 
end  of  each  contract  period  with  an  inadequate  and  partially  antiquated  system,  the  invest¬ 
ment  to  provide  for  which  the  city  has  entirely  repaid,  though  not  thereby  gaining  any  legal 
title  to  the  street  lighting  equipment. 

No  such  difficulties  as  outlined  above  exist  in  the  case  of  private  lighting  contracts.  Take, 
for  instance,  the  case  of  a  department  store  purchasing  electric  service.  The  store  owns  its  own 
lamps,  reflectors,  fixtures,  electric  motors,  etc.  As  improved  lamps,  reflectors,  or  the  like  are 
perfected  and  placed  on  the  market,  the  store  brings  its  equipment  up  to  date.  It  purchases 
electrical  energy  on  the  kilowatt-hour  basis,  as  measured  by  an  electric  meter,  and  pays  only 
for  the  current  actually  donsumed.  At  the  end  of  any  contract  period  it  actually  owns  the 
lamps  for  which  it  has  paid,  and  is  at  liberty  to  either  renew  the  contract  with  the  old  light¬ 
ing  company  or  enter  into  a  contract  with  a  new  lighting  company  on  thoroughly  equitable 
terms. 

Let  us  consider  how  the  private  basis  of  contract,  the  meter  or  kilowatt-hour  basis,  would 
work  out  in  the  case  of  the  city’s  street  lighting. 

Such  a  basis  would  naturally  involve  the  city’s  owning  the  street  lamps,  and  the  poles  or 
standards  supporting  same.  If  the  street  lamps  were  thus  owned  by  the  city,  there  would  be 
no  incentive  to  install  a  large  number  during  the  early  period  of  a  contract  and  an  insufficient 
number  during  the  latter  period  of  a  contract.  Indeed,  the  question  of  financing  sucli  a  pur¬ 
chase  would  tend  to  discourage  the  city  from  making  an  excessively  large  purchase  of  lamps  at 
one  time.  This  would  be  highly  advisable,  in  view  of  the  constant  improvements  which  are  be¬ 
ing  made  in  street  lamps.  As  new  and  improved  lamps  were  introduced  on  the  market,  no  ele¬ 
ment  of  self-interest,  such  as  exists  in  the  case  of  the  lamp-year  basis  of  contract,  would  stand 
in  the  way  of  the  city’s  promptly  availing  itself  of  such  improvements.  Finally,  the  city  would 
pay  the  actual  investment  cost  of  the  lamps  once  only,  and  would  then  own  them,  instead  of 
paying  such  investment  cost,  in  whole  or  in  part,  twice  over,  as  happens  on  the  lamp-year  basis 
of  contract  when  the  same  lamps  are  employed  during  two  different  contract  periods. 

The  application  of  the  above  basis  of  contract  to  our  Milwaukee  street  lighting  situation 
could  be  made  somewhat  as  follows.  Street  lamps  at  present  installed  would  be  rented  from 
the  Milwaukee  Electric  Railway  and  Light  Co.  on  a  per  month  basis.  The  amount  of  such 
monthly  rental  should  be  low,  for  it  should  be  remembered  that  the  city  has  already  repaid  to 
the  Electric  Co.,  through  lamp-year  payments  under  the  old  contract,  the  investment  cost  in¬ 
volved  in  these  lamps.  Nevertheless,  the  city  should  undoubtedly  pay  the  Electric  Co.  a  small 
rental,  as  otherwise  the  city  would  be  compelled  to  provide  for  new  lamps  at  a  considerably 
larger  expense. 

The  street  lighting  system  proposed  by  the  Milwaukee  Electric  Railway  &  Light  Co.,  the 
system  referred  to  in  the  recent  report  by  the  Railway  Commission  on  this  subject,  contemplates 
the  installation  of  3,809  new  street  lamps.  The  investment  cost  involved  in  providing  for  these 
lamps  must  obviously  be  repaid  to  the  Electric  Co.  during  ten  years,  the  term  of  the  proposed 
contract.  A  like  sum  of  money  devoted  year  by  year  directly  to  the  purchase  of  new  lamps 
would  enable  the  city  to  acquire  new  lamps  at  the  rate  of  380  lamps  per  year.  At  the  end  of 
any  year  or  succession  of  years,  the  city  would  find  itself  no  more  out  of  pocket  than  would 
have  been  the  case  had  street  lighting  been  purchased  on  a  lamp-year  basis.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  city  would  have  something  to  show  for  the  money  expended,  and  would  actually  own  the 
lamps. 


It  may  be  objected  that  under  the  lamp-year  basis  the  city  would  at  once  find  itself  served 
by  a  new  and  up-to-date  system,  whereas  under  the  kilowatt-hour  basis  of  contract  the  city 
could  only  gradually  acquire  such  a  system..  This  objection  reveals  a  blessing  rather  than  an 
evil.  Improvements  are  being  made  too  rapidly  in  the  development  of  street  lamps  to  make  it 
possible  to  wisely  make  so  large  an  investment  as  would  be  represented  by  an  immediate  re¬ 
habilitation  of  the  entire  system.  By  the  city’s  adopting  the  plan  of  annually  applying  direct¬ 
ly  to  the  purchase  of  lamps  the  sum  of  money  which  would  otherwise  be  paid  to  a  private  light¬ 
ing  company  for  interest  and  depreciation  on  their  investment,  the  city  at  the  end  of  a  five- 
year  or  ten-year  period  would  find  itself  the  actual  owner  of  a  street  lighting  equipment  in 
which  only  a  small  portion  of  the  lamps  would  be  of  antiquated  type.  By  the  plan  of  a  pri¬ 
vate  company  making  the  larger  part  of  the  investment  at  once,  the  city  then  paying  interest 
and  depreciation  on  the  investment,  the  end  of  a  five  or  ten  year  period  would  find  the  major 
portion  of  the  street  lighting  equipment  of  an  antiquated  type,  but  even  to  such  antiquated  type 
of  lamp  the  city  would  have  no  legal  title. 

Our  committee  believes  that  there  can  be  only  one  really  valid  objection  to  the  kilowatt- 
hour  basis  of  contract.  This  objection  arises  from  the  fact  that,  if  the  city  is  to  own  the  lamps 
and  supporting  poles,  the  city  must  likewise  purchase,  install  and  maintain  such  lamps  and 
poles.  It  must,  of  course,  be  recognized  that  the  city  is  not  at  present  organized  to  properly 
and  economically  assume  the  responsibility  for  such  purchase,  installation  and  maintenance. 

The  above  objection  is  doubtless  a  valid  one, but  it  is  not  difficult  to  dispose  of  it  on  a  thor¬ 
oughly  practical  basis.  The  city  could,  of  course,  give  the  Commissioner  of  Public  Works  the 
necessary  additional  support  to  organize  his  department  to  efficiently  take  care  of  this  work.  A 
simpler  and  probably  better  plan,  however,  would  be  to  have  the  purchase,  installation  and 
maintenance  of  street  lamps  taken  care  of  during  the  term  of  the  proposed  contract  by  the 
lighting  company,  just  as  is  done  at  the  present  time,  the  city  paying  actual  cost  of  labor  and 
material,  plus  a  percentage  to  cover  the  overhead  expenses  to  which  the  lighting  company  would 
be  put  in  performing  this  service.  Under  such  arrangement,  it  would  be  very  simple  to  protect 
the  city  against  any  possible  overcharge  for  labor  or  material.  The  final  power  to  specify  type 
of  material  should,  of  course,  rest  with  the  city. 

Under  the  above  contract  basis,  the  city  would  pay  for  its  street  lighting  month  by  month 
on  a  kilowatt-hour  basis,  just  as  does  the  private  consumer,  and  in  addition  would  pay  for 
the  installation  of  new  lamps  and  the  maintenance  of  old  lamps,  just  as  the  private  consumer 
pays  the  electrical  contractor  for  new  material  installed  or  old  material  repaired.  Such  a  con¬ 
tract  basis  would  insure  the  city  of  receiving  a  dollar’s  worth  of  service  for  every  dollar  ex¬ 
pended,  and  would  remove  the  evil,  unavoidable  under  the  lamp-year  basis  of  contract,  of  the 
city  being  involved  in  an  unwise  investment  in  street  lamps,  for  which  investment  it  must  of 
course  pay. 

It  should  be  noted  that,  at  the  end  of  the  contract  period  on  the  kilowatt-hour  basis,  the 
city  is  in  a  position  to  freely  decide  as  between  renewing  the  contract  with  the  same  company, 
obtaining  current  from  a  municipal  plant,  or  signing  a  contract  with  another  lighting  company 
Under  the  lamp-year  basis  of  contract,  the  city  has  repaid  the  cost  of  the  lamps  but  does  not 
own  them;  and  to  furnish  the  current  from  a  municipal  plant  or  to  sign  a  new  contract  with  a 
different  private  company  would  involve  investment  in  a  complete  equipment  of  new  lamps, 
the  city,  of  course,  in  any  case  bearing  the  cost  of  such  investment.  It  seems  to  our  committee 
incontestible  that  any  contract  should  be  of  such  a  character  as  not,  at  the  expiration  of  the 
contract,  to  place  a  large  premium  on  renewing  it  on  similar  terms. 

For  the  above  reasons,  our  committee  is  very  strongly  of  the  opinion  that  any  contract 
made  with  a  private  lighting  company  should  be  on  the  kilowatt-hour  basis  described  above, 
rather  than  on  the  lamp-year  basis. 

Question  3. 

In  what  way  should  the  city  determine  the  type  of  street  lighting  system  to  be  employed? 

It  has  been  the  general  practice  of  the  past,  not  only  in  Milwaukee  but  elsewhere,  when  a 
new  contract  for  street  lighting  was  being  arranged  for,  to  invite  the  lighting  company  or 
companies  to  submit  bids.  This  is  as  indefinite  as  it  would  be  to  invite  a  building  contractor 
to  submit  bids  on  “building  a  house.”  Such  contractor  must  know  the  size  and  type  of  house 
and  the  quality  of  material  to  be  used  before  he  can  submit  an  intelligent  and  fair  bid.  Just 
so  the  lighting  company  must  know  the  approximate  number  and  type  of  street  lights  to  be 
furnished,  the  type  of  lamp  support  or  suspension,  and  the  amount  of  underground  and  over¬ 
head  circuits  required,  before  such  lighting  company  can  submit  an  intelligent  and  fair  bid. 


When,  therefore,  a  lighting  company  is  invited  to  submit  bids,  it  necessarily  proceeds  to  draw  up 
some  definite  plan  for  lighting  the  streets  of  the  city,  and  then  submits  its  bids  on  the  basis  of 
this  plan. 

No  prudent  business  man  would  for  a  moment  think  of  erecting  a  costly  structure  on  plans 
submitted  by  the  building  contractor.  He  employs  an  architect  to  draw  up  the  plans.  The 
building  contractor  may  know  what  kind  of  material  will  give  best  service  at  the  lowest  cost; 
he  may  know  what  plan  of  house  can  be  put  up  most  cheaply;  but  he  is  not  com¬ 
petent  to  determine  what  type  of  building  will  give  the  owner  the  most  satisfactory  service.  More¬ 
over,  the  contractor  is  an  interested  party  to  the  building  contract;  and  even  if  he  did  have  all 
requisite  knowledge  to  properly  plan  the  building,  he  would  have  a  powerful  incentive  of  strong 
self-interest  to  draw  up  the  plans  with  reference  to  the  type  of  building  which  would  permit  him 
to  make  the  largest  margin  of  profit,  rather  than  with  reference  to  what  would  give  the  owner  the 
best  possible  service. 

The  analogy  suggested  above  can  be  applie  d  to  the  street  lighting  situation  with  perfect  fair¬ 
ness.  In  the  next  five  years  Milwaukee  will  be  obliged  to  spend  a  total  of  about  one  and  one- 
quarter  million  dollars  for  its  street  lighting.  To  spend  this  large  sum  in  accordance  with  plans 
drawn  up  by  a  lighting  company  would  be  the  height  of  business  folly.  Even  if  the  lighting  com¬ 
pany  had  competent  illumination  experts,  it  is  too  directly  interested  as  a  party  to  the  street 
lighting  contract  to  make  it  wise  or  proper  for  the  city  to  permit  it  to  propose,  and  in  practical 
effect  to  determine,  the  type  of  street  lighting  system  to  be  employed. 

The  losses  due  to  unscientific  street  lighting,  to  the  failure  of  the  city  to  employ  competent 
experts  to  lay  out  the  system,  are  greater  than  most  citizens  realize.  Data  before  our  committee 
shows  very  conclusively  that  the  effectiveness  of  our  present  street  lighting  system  could  be  at  least 
doubled,  without  increase  in  annual  expenditure,  by  installing  a  properly  designed  street 
lighting  system  in  place  of  our  present  unscientific  one.  This  means  that  the  city  is  wasting  many 
thousands  of  dollars  annually.  Surely  this  is  a  source  of  waste  which  should  be  stopped  without 
delay. 

A  subject  which  has  received  too  little  attention  in  the  past  is  the  possible  extended  use  of 
gas  in  street  lighting.  It  is  entirely  possible  to  design  a  type  of  gas  lamp  which  will  light  the 
streets  just  as  effectively  and  just  as  attractively  as  the  best  electric  lamp.  The  choice  between 
gas  and  electric  street  lighting,  assuming  each  installed  on  the  best  possible  basis,  is  wholly  a  ques¬ 
tion  as  to  which  type  of  lighting  can  be  furnished  the  more  cheaply.  In  the  business  districts, 
where  large  light  units  are  required,  it  is  probable  that  electric  lamps  can  be  used  to  advantage. 
In  the  residence  districts,  on  the  other  hand,  where  best  results  require  the  use  of  small  light 
units,  it  is  probable  that  gas  street  lighting,  equally  as  satisfactory  as  electric  street  lighting,  can 
be  furnished  at  a  lesser  cost. 

In  the  interest  of  economy  in  street  lighting,  this  subject  should  be  thoroughly  investigated. 
Pending  the  results  of  such  investigation,  any  contract  entered  into  by  the  city  for  street  lighting 
by  electricity  should  be  of  such  a  character  as  to  permit  a  considerable  extension  in  gas  street 
lighting,  if  this  shall  be  found  to  be  desirable. 

In  view  of  the  above  considerations,  our  committee  considers  it  self-evident  that  a  competent 
Illuminating  Engineer,  who  is  an  expert  on  the  subject  of  street  lighting,  should  be  retained  by  the 
city  at  an  early  date.  Only  by  the  employment  of  such  a  competent  expert  can  the  city  wisely 
and  intelligently  determine  what  type  of  street  lighting  system  will  give  Milwaukee  the  largest 
returns  for  the  annual  expenditure  made. 

The  cost  for  the  services  of  such  an  expert  would  be  but  a  small  fraction  of  the  amount  which 
he  can  save  to  the  city  in  a  single  year.  Such  expert  services  would  cost  the  city  only  about 
one-half  of  one  per  cent  of  the  total  street  lighting  expenditure  involved.  The  business  man  finds 
it  wise  policy  to  employ  engineering  specialists  fo  r  problems  of  a  like  character,  though  such  ser¬ 
vices  regularly  cost  him  from  five  to  ten  per  cent  of  the  expenditure.  Because  of  the  magnitude 
of  the  street  lighting  expenditure,  the  city  can  o  btain  competent  engineering  services  at  an  insig¬ 
nificant  percentage  of  the  total  cost  involved. 


RECOMMENDATIONS, 

The  City  Club,  through  its  Committee  on  Street  Lighting,  respectfully  recommends  to  your 
honorable  body: 

1.  That  the  city  at  an  early  date  enter  into  contract  with  a  private  company  or  companies 
for  lighting  the  streets  of  Milwaukee;  and  that  the  contract  term  be  five  years,  with  such  proviso 
for  termination  after  three  years  or  four  years  as  discussed  above. 

2.  That  the  contract  be  drawn  on  the  basis  of  the  city  buying  electrical  energy  on  a  kilo¬ 
watt-hour  basis,  the  city  owning  its  own  lamps  and  the  poles  supporting  same. 

3.  That  the  city  at  an  early  date  employ  a  competent  engineer  to  make  a  thorough  study 
of  the  problem  and  to  recommend  the  type  or  types  of  street  lamps  to  be  used  and  the  proposed 
mounting  height  and  location  of  such  lamps  to  produce  the  best  results. 

4.  That  the  relative  suitability  and  cost  of  gas  and  electricity  for  street  lighting  be  thor¬ 
oughly  investigated  as  a  part  of  the  engineering  study  referred  to  above. 

The  City  Club,  through  its  Committee  on  Street  Lighting,  would  further  respectfully  recom¬ 
mend  : 

5.  That  Resolution  File  No.  5839,  now  pending  before  your  honorable  body,  be  rejected  as 
inconsistent  with  the  best  interests  of  the  city,  f  or  the  reasons  set  forth  in  this  communication. 

6.  That  Resolution  File  No.  5830,  now  pending  before  your  honorable  body,  be  approved. 

Our  committee  considers  this  resolution  to  embody  the  essential  features  of  Recommendations  3 
and  4,  as  made  above. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

E.  C.  WALL, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Street  Lighting, 

Sanitation  and  Paving. 

(  HAROLD  IT.  SEAMAN, 

\  Chairman  Sub-Committee  on  Street  Lighting. 

Sub-Committee  \  FRED  S.  HUNT, 

)  TIIEO.  OTJEN, 

V  ARTHUR  J.  SWEET, 

EDWARD  H.  BAIR, 

M.  H.  BRAND, 

R.  R.  FREEMAN, 

NATHAN  PERELES,  JR., 

LOUIS  F.  REINHARD, 

V.  G.  ROBERTS, 


